Silly String Birthday Party

[Crow_Ascending]

Here's the link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

 

[cajun]

I'm curious, do you know or have you heard any explenation to the bruises up and down her arms? When I read the web site that is pro Darlie did not do it, they had photo's and talked about these defense bruises. Just when I feel sure she did it, I read something that makes me question it.

ETA: I just ordered the book by Barbara Davis, she did a 180 on her opinion so now I want to read what she first thought happened.

Maybe those boys were kicking the crap out of her while she was stabbing them. I am sure they just didn't lay there and take it.

 

[cami]

I will assert, as I have previously on this topic (to be shot down) that, however innappropriate the behaviour, this video had no place at her trial (and how the pros had the gall to use it when the officers pleaded the 5th re ther other tape I don't know). People acting inappropriately does not make them killers. Evidence of such behaviour proves neither guilt nor a tendency to participate in criminal behaviour.

Irrespective of whether she is guilty or innocent, the video is not relevant to the consideration of whether she killed her children. If it hadn't been included, then maybe there wouldn't be so much debate about whether her conviction is safe or not. Those who say she would have been found gulity without it, well, we don't know that so thats a pointless assertion.

Mothers out there.....ever had a drink whilst being in charge of your children? What if a genuine accident happened and evidence of your drinking behaviour prior to or after the incident was used to implicate you re the actual incident? It just isn't relevant unless there was a direct causal link between the behaviour and what happened.

I do not want to see guilty people go free, I want public confidence in the conviction in the first place.

The tape is circumstantial evidence. It's probative value outweighs any prejudice. It would be up to the judge to strike the tape and not allow it to be shown to the jury..not the prosecution. That's the way it is with trials, it's what is legal that matters. As well, the defense had the option to play the surveillance tape for the jury to impeach the ss tape but they didn't for some reason.

The officers pleaded the fifth because they were accused of a crime, they refused to answer until they had consulted an attorney...that's their right under the constitution.

We can agree or disagree but it's not up to us after all.

 

[cami]

As I said on another thread about the silly string video.......if Darlie had lost her boys in what could be called normal deaths, that is, by cancer, or by a long illness, then maybe you could accept her being joyful for Devon that he was to celebrate his birthday in heaven.That he as released from earthly pain.
But she didn't lose them that way.
She had them ripped from her life by a vile act of murder, a murder so foul that people today still can't come to the terms of it.
That little Devon who was having the birthday should have been running excitedly around the place with his brother getting ready for his cake and party.
But he wasn't.
He was lying cold and dead hand in hand with his beloved brother under six feet of earth.
If Darlie can find something to celebrate in that then I am afraid she is a real sicko.

Way to go Chrystalmama, good post...

 

[cami]

Ok I'm not sure why you are quoting me ? I didn't respond to cyberlaw ??

I was asking Kitty if she was yelling at me by using all bolds, and it was a genuine question, Ive not seen a computer where the bold can be locked down ??

In regards to this topic being a hotbed, I havent been rude or nasty to anyone in here, I have stated my opinion and been poo poo'd for it from a number of people.

If you believe Darlie is guilty well thats fine.

But there is no need for anyone to be sarcastic, use smileys to be rude or anything else.

There is plenty of Fors and Againsts for lots of people who have been charged with a crime - everyone handles the topic with respect and I do not see why this Case has to be different.

I believe Darlie should get a new Trial. I have read the transcripts.

I read the other day that Jury's find it VERY hard to give the DP to a woman.
And now that I have read that some jurors feel remorse for giving her the DP and convicting her I have to ask why ?

And I have followed up on the suggestion that it was *jurors remorse* and accordingly I do not believe this was the case with these jurors from what I have read and seen.

In regards to the silly string episode I wanted to re discover it because It has been stated numerous times that she was largely convicted DUE TO that episode in conjunction with other things , yes, But this was in the Jurys head all the time....

Can I just ask that we discuss this nicely in a calm and friendly manner please ?

I would hate to see the DR forums taken away again

I don't think Wendy meant any offence Jane....she's not that type of person.

I don't think you will find the Silly String Tape online. It's always been a part of the various television programs on this crime but it's never been offered as a stand alone tape on the net. It was filmed by a news crew so they'd have copywrite to it.

I don't think we can judge what was in the jury's head unless they tell us. One juror has spoken out about the deliberations but he's been led astray shall we say in the opinion of many people. His statements are not supported by the trial transcripts. It has only been stated numerous times by the spin from the supporters of Darlie, there's no official statements from the jurors that this tape was largely responsible for their verdict. There has been one or two jurors on television programs and they gave no indication that the ss tape was the smoking gun to them.

 

[cami]

My question to you now is if you are so adamant that she is guilty then why will it bother you if she has a new trial ? if the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear cut as you say then surely a new trial won't matter

(lets put away costs of trials and things - that isn't the point here - because I am sure at the end of the day, money aside if someone *was* innocent you would rather them not die right ?)

So my point is this, as the silly string graveside episode was so *disturbing* to the Jury and Viewers alike and as they made their judgement they carried that *disturbing* thought in their heads along with the photos of the two slain , bloodied, little boys bodies - images - in their heads and came up with Guilty.

If that had not have been shown as putting Darlie in front of them as a partying , dancing , non grieving mother on their graves then it might have been harder....

That is my sole point to this entire thread.

I just want a new trial. Because I believe this was a very unjust one. And isn't everyone entitled to a fair and just trial ?

Darlie had a fair trial though Jane. But Jane is there no proof that the ss tape was disturbing to the jury and no proof they made it the basis of their conviction. So unless you can show that they did. It was only one piece of the evidence against her in the long run and yes if it was thrown out, she'd still be convicted. She convicted herself when she got up on that stand and lied over and over again.

 

[cami]

Respectfully, I got "THIS" information from reading the transcripts!

During a "real" trial, witnesses are not allowed to listen to each others testimony. Why do you think that is?

I don't know if the defense had a mock trial or not. I would guess no. From reading the transcripts, it seems to me all the defense did for Darlie, when they did anything at all, was try to put out fires lit by the prosecution. IMO, Darlie would have done much better sticking with PD rather than switching to Mulder. A first year law student could have done better than he! This is the reason I feel Darlie deserves a new trial.

No blood outside the home....did police really look for any....given that there was a big storm....and the fact that Cron pretty much decided within the first half hour of being inside the home there was no intruder?

LOL, where did you expect the police to look for blood? If there's none in the garage, none on the exit window, none on the gate or fence, none on the walkway or on the furniture that was outside the window....where else should they look?

The storm happened after the house was released and the evidence already collected.

Yes Cron decided from the evidence at the scene there was no intruder. That's what experienced Crime Scene Analysts do, they examine the scene based against the story told by the victims.....since Darlie's story was a lie, he quickly knew there was no intruder based on his experience examining crime scenes. That's what investigators do, they let the evidence lead them to their conclusions. What does this have to do with anything? Oh a rush to judgement eh? What Cron didn't know and never offered was who on the inside committed the crime.

 

[cami]

Yes and suprise surpise they are the photos that were NOT shown to the Jury

I'm not really arguing (at this point) whether she did it or didn't do it
I do not believe she had a fair trial, and agreed from all accounts her lawyer was NOT acting in her best interest at all, I don't care if it he is the best lawyer in the whole world he had a conflict of interest because of Darin

She needs a new trial, and really if everyone thinks she is so guilty what is everyone scared of by her having a new trial ?
If she is that guilty then the new jury will convict Guilty again and that will be the end of it

I thought you said you read the trial transcripts? There is testimony about the bruises and clear and concise evidence that the photos were shown to the jury. Doug Mulder agrees that the photos of the bruises were shown to the jury. The jurors have talked about the bruises. She doesn't get a new trial on the bruises. She would have won one of her appeals by now.

No conflict of interest...haven't you read the court decision? Darlie was asked by the judge if she wanted Mulder to continue and she said yes.

B, A, and I. Do these appear to be photographs of Darlie
15 Routier?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And is there a date present
18 here in the bottom right-hand corner of these
19 photographs?
20 A. It says 6-10-96.
21 Q. Okay. So, we can assume, at least if
22 that's correct, they were taken on the 10th day of June,
23 1996?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at 52-A. Do
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
765

1 you see a wound here to the right arm, or evidence of an
2 injury to the right arm?
3 A. There's a large amount of bruising to
4 the right arm, but I don't see any -- actually by
5 laceration, there's none. But there is evidence of
6 bruising to the arm.
7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty large
8 bruise, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where does it extend from?
11 A. It appears to go from her wrist to
12 right below where her hand is, past her elbow, up toward,
13 almost into her armpit.
14 Q. Okay. And then 52-E, that's an even
15 more close-up photograph of that bruise?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. If you could take these two
18 photographs and go along the jury rail so all the jurors
19 can see.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Santos, tell the jurors what
22 caused this type of bruising.
23 A. Some type of trauma. Some kind of
24 blunt trauma, being hit, a car wreck, anything like that.
25 Some kind of a force to the arm.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
766

1 Q. What is blunt trauma?
2 A. Blunt trauma, as opposed to none
3 penetrating. Penetrating is usually stab wound or
4 gunshot wound. Blunt trauma is -- again, in a car wreck,
5 falling and hitting your arm, being hit with a baseball
6 bat or something like that.
7 Q. Being struck by an object very hard?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Doesn't break the skin?
10 A. Does not penetrate.
11 Q. But causes these deep bruises?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Is this pretty severe blunt
14 trauma that we're looking at?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Now, by looking at these photographs,
17 can you tell anything about the age of this bruise?
18 A. Just by looking at this photograph, I
19 would say that that injury is about 24 to 48 hours old.
20 Q. 24 to 48 hours old?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And what do you see there in the
23 photograph that let's you have that opinion?
24 A. On this photograph there is some deep
25 bruising to this part of the arm over here. But up
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
767

1 towards -- the upper part of her arm, the arm proper
2 close to the armpit, there's more of a redness over here.
3 That tells you that this is not a very old wound. Wounds
4 like this tend to get very dark, and after about three or
5 four days starts turning green when that blood starts to
6 get absorbed. But this redness up here tells me that it
7 was probably a 24 to 48 hour old wound.
8 Q. When it's photographed here?
9 A. Yes, at that time.
10 Q. And the date is 6-10-96?

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3

Darlie must at this point prove she's innocent...she must prove that no reasonable juror would have found her guilty based on the new evidence she provides in order to be granted a new trial. That will never happen IMO.

 

[accordn2me]

<snip>

... the defense had the option to play the surveillance tape for the jury to impeach the ss tape but they didn't for some reason.

<snip>

Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.

The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution 99.9% of the time during Darlie's trial. So much for stiking prejudicial, irrelevant "evidence."

 

[accordn2me]

LOL,

:doh:

where did you expect the police to look for blood?

Everywhere!

If there's none in the garage, none on the exit window, none on the gate or fence, none on the walkway or on the furniture that was outside the window....where else should they look?

(my bold) FYI, there was blood in the garage. That's as good a place as any to start. Better than "on the furniture that was outside the window!" :bang:

The storm happened after the house was released and the evidence already collected.

Yes, not long after the ambulance rolled away with Darlie....

<snip>

What Cron didn't know and never offered was who on the inside committed the crime.

Do you think this is why he practically recanted his testimony?

 

[whitywendy]

Jane - sorry was not trying to be ugly to you or anyone else here.

Cami - good posts.

I am not sure who keeps mentioning that it rained that day and washed away the blood evidence but if you go back and look at the original news footage of the crime scene that day it shows you it was a SUNNY day. Not raining or cloudy nor had it rained the previous night. This has been discussed previously. NO RAIN.

In regards to the black car seen that night, it is in the transcripts where the black car was pulled over, all occupants of the vehicle had to get out and they searched the car, including the trunk and found no blood, no knifes. They questioned every single one of the individuals who were in the car and let them all go because there wasn't a single shred of evidence found to link it or them to the Routier's.

So no rain to wash away the blood and the mysterious black car was found that very morning and ruled out.

It is all in the transcripts.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

There was also no blood found in the garage, no bloody items of evidence bundled together, the man in the front yard was Darin, as testified to by a neighbor who was watching out the window, and search dogs could pick up no trace of anyone's scent other than the family's. The following remain unexplained by Darlie:
1. Why is there a bloody knife print on the living room carpet?
2. If Darlie was wetting towels at the sink, why is the baby bottle still standing upright?
3. Why are there droplets of blood in the utility room when Darlie claims she never went in there?
4. If Darlie wakes up 'all groggy' as she claims, how does she immediately know the man walking away from the sofa is not Darin?
5. Why is there no blood splatter where the knife was supposedly dropped?
There's more, but that'll do for now.

 

[CyberLaw]

The trial was fair, the judge was fair, there was no incompetence(if there was, that could be brought up on appeal, but that is usually the first thing a guilty person does, blame the lawyer. No rouge attorneys, only two of the most expense high powered attorneys in Texas at that time represented Darlie at trial, and by no means where they lazy. They know what evidence would be presented and they put on a "good" case for their client.

The only difficulty that they were facing, is the many stories of Darlie told not only to LE, but friends and relatives. The forensics, the blood spatter evidence and Darlie herself. Against her Lawyers advice, Darlie took the stand and related "her version" of events in her world. Too bad those "stories" and events do not even come close to the evidence collected at the scene. Her cross exam was "devestating" to the defense as that is why Lawyer do not put their clients on the stand.

So a person can believe a story or believe the evidence. Well the evidence does not lie.

Both sides can have "closed" door hearing on evidence and challenge both. Both can argue prejudicial and probative value of the evidence.

By Darlie claimng that she is a grieving mother, well the "probative" value of the tape will contradict and disprove this. That is probative and disproves her "claim" that she is a distraught mother.

No prejudice in that.

Darlie never thoguht because of her injuries that anyone would doubt her. In her "self aborsed" state, she thought that her story would be believed at face value. Little did she know that LE are "well trained(not just a high school diploma)and they have many years of experience and deal with murderers "stories" all the time. But they "investigate" and look at the evidence and determined if the evidence matches the story. When the evidence does not(as in this case)they tend to suspect the only person who was "present" during the murders.

For all of the "pro Darlie" fans outthere, Justice for Damon and Devon has been served by the death penalty. Now when the penalty takes place is a whole another question.

But the State of Texas did seek and receive justice for the brutal murder of two little boys who went to sleep one night and never woke to see another day. Never had the chance for their life and the joys that would have come. Darlie saw to the fact that the "firsts" will never come.

There has been many criminals that "think" they can outsmart people who have many years of post secondary training, pass the bar and practice law. Guess what, criminals are criminals for a reason and most of them are none too bright. Darlie is no exception.

 

[cami]

Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.

The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution 99.9% of the time during Darlie's trial. So much for stiking prejudicial, irrelevant "evidence."

LOL, you know that Darlie was the worst type of defendant. She refused to take Mulder's advice. She refused to allow any mitigating factors and went for straight innocence when everyone knew the evidence was stacked against her, and she refused her attorneys advice not to testify and took the stand, major mistake on her part. She thought she could just lie to the jury and fool everyone but she was caught in her own lies.

 

[cami]

:doh:

Everywhere!

(my bold) FYI, there was blood in the garage. That's as good a place as any to start. Better than "on the furniture that was outside the window!" :bang:

Yes, not long after the ambulance rolled away with Darlie....

<snip>

Do you think this is why he practically recanted his testimony?

Listen we've been through this again and again and again with you. There was no blood in the garage. If there was please post the testimony that proves it. And you skirt the point by being sarcastic and only focusing on the furniture. Wheres the rest of the blood?

You know and I know that the storm happened long after the evidence was collected so stop trying to make it appear anything else.

And please post Cron's recantation. That's a new one on me.

 

[cami]

Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.

The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution 99.9% of the time during Darlie's trial. So much for stiking prejudicial, irrelevant "evidence."

I'll pick.."the tape doesn't show Darlie crying and sobbing and greiving as her family would lead us to believe and that's why the defence didn't dare show it." It has no probative value and can't impeach the silly string tape.

 

[cami]

The trial was fair, the judge was fair, there was no incompetence(if there was, that could be brought up on appeal, but that is usually the first thing a guilty person does, blame the lawyer. No rouge attorneys, only two of the most expense high powered attorneys in Texas at that time represented Darlie at trial, and by no means where they lazy. They know what evidence would be presented and they put on a "good" case for their client.

The only difficulty that they were facing, is the many stories of Darlie told not only to LE, but friends and relatives. The forensics, the blood spatter evidence and Darlie herself. Against her Lawyers advice, Darlie took the stand and related "her version" of events in her world. Too bad those "stories" and events do not even come close to the evidence collected at the scene. Her cross exam was "devestating" to the defense as that is why Lawyer do not put their clients on the stand.

So a person can believe a story or believe the evidence. Well the evidence does not lie.

Both sides can have "closed" door hearing on evidence and challenge both. Both can argue prejudicial and probative value of the evidence.

By Darlie claimng that she is a grieving mother, well the "probative" value of the tape will contradict and disprove this. That is probative and disproves her "claim" that she is a distraught mother.

No prejudice in that.

Darlie never thoguht because of her injuries that anyone would doubt her. In her "self aborsed" state, she thought that her story would be believed at face value. Little did she know that LE are "well trained(not just a high school diploma)and they have many years of experience and deal with murderers "stories" all the time. But they "investigate" and look at the evidence and determined if the evidence matches the story. When the evidence does not(as in this case)they tend to suspect the only person who was "present" during the murders.

For all of the "pro Darlie" fans outthere, Justice for Damon and Devon has been served by the death penalty. Now when the penalty takes place is a whole another question.

But the State of Texas did seek and receive justice for the brutal murder of two little boys who went to sleep one night and never woke to see another day. Never had the chance for their life and the joys that would have come. Darlie saw to the fact that the "firsts" will never come.

There has been many criminals that "think" they can outsmart people who have many years of post secondary training, pass the bar and practice law. Guess what, criminals are criminals for a reason and most of them are none too bright. Darlie is no exception.

Cyberlaw, I just love your posts, I'm actually laughing at this one...no Darlie is non too bright. You take no prisoners eh?

We've got an interesting case here in Nova Scotia. A mother charged with first degree murder in the death of her 12 year-old daughter. The trial should be upcoming soon. Of course there's a news black out until trial. If they change venue to Halifax, I'm going to attend the trial.

 

[White Rain]

LOL, you know that Darlie was the worst type of defendant. She refused to take Mulder's advice. She refused to allow any mitigating factors and went for straight innocence when everyone knew the evidence was stacked against her, and she refused her attorneys advice not to testify and took the stand, major mistake on her part. She thought she could just lie to the jury and fool everyone but she was caught in her own lies.

Yep, they really tore her apart on the stand.

 

[whitywendy]

Yep, they really tore her apart on the stand.

Hey White Rain - Off subject here but I hope your pregnancy is going good!

Darlie made a complete fool of herself on that stand. The fact that she got so mad when she realized they were reading her mail while she was in jail actually made me laugh when I was reading the transcripts. I know it is not funny but that surely was a DUH moment.

 

[accordn2me]

Listen we've been through this again and again and again with you. There was no blood in the garage. If there was please post the testimony that proves it. <snip>

1 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
2 Q. Mr. Cron, let me ask you: Sometime
3 after your initial walk-through of the garage, if you
4 ever saw blood on the floor of that garage?
5 A. Did I ever see blood?
6 Q. Yes, sir.
7 A. Yes.